v. Hall et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 - this action is dismissed. Signed by Judge John D. Holschuh on 10/21/2009. (sln)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ERNEST HALL, Plaintiff v. NURSE GOODMAN Defendant. : : : : : ORDER On September 16, 2009, the Magistrate Judge performed an initial screening report and recommendation (Doc. 3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Magistrate Judge found that the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it "contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends..., (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief..." The Magistrate Judge also noted that Plaintiff filed substantially the same action earlier this year in a different division of this Court, and that it was dismissed upon initial screening. Ernest Hall v. Nurse V, et al., 1:09-cv-381 (S. D. Ohio, July 23, 2009 Order). He therefore recommended that this case be dismissed. 1 Civil Action 2:09-cv-792 Judge Holschuh Magistrate Judge Abel
Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. On October 19, 2009, he filed a second application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 10), although he was already granted this status in the Magistrate
Judge's screening order. Given Plaintiff's lack of objection, and on de novo review as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b), I find the report and recommendation well taken. Accordingly, it (Doc. 3) is ADOPTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
Date: October 21, 2009
/s/ John D. Holschuh United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?